Talk:Creekfinding

Creekfinding has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 1, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Creekfinding appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Creekfinding was inspired by epidemiologist Michael Osterholm's efforts to restore a creek that had been diverted decades earlier?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Creekfinding.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Creekfinding was written after its author read an article about the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm and his efforts to restore a creek that had been diverted decades earlier? Source: "Martin said she learned of his efforts when reading a Gazette article back in 2011 and knew right away that she wanted to tell the story." [1] "He found USDA aerial photos of the land prior to 1949, when spring water was diverted to a ditch along the road so the farmer could plant corn." [2]
- Reviewed: Everything We Need

Moved to mainspace by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@DanCherek:, "synopsis" section does not cite sources. Dr Salvus 13:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to Booklist and the work itself (which should be fine per MOS:PLOTSOURCE). Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @DanCherek:, promoted. If you want please review, Federico Gatti and Fabio Miretti. Dr Salvus 14:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek and Dr Salvus: The hook is a little convoluted and I think it can be phrased more effectively. Suggesting some alts below:

ALT1: ... that Creekfinding was inspired by epidemiologist Michael Osterholm's efforts to restore a creek that had been diverted decades earlier?

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great improvement, thanks. (I think that while writing the original, I was trying a little too hard to avoid the "X book is about Y" kind of hook, but I think your proposed one avoids that issue.) DanCherek (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to boldly readd the tick, since ALT1 is just a trimmed version of ALT0. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Creekfinding/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check. I reviewed the few matches over 4% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. Matches are the title and such WP:LIMITED phrases as "published by the University of Minnesota Press", "at the end of the book" and "the illustrations for the book".
Images: Suitable FUR in place for the cover; other images have CC licenses. Images are relevant; placement and captions are fine. The Osterholm picture could have alt text added; alt text for the other images is OK.
Added alt text. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background and publication

You could wikilink epidemiologist. (I'm not sure if there's a suitable way to resphrase to opening to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though.)
I thought about this for a bit and removed "the American epidemiologist" from the lead, and then in the first section of this Background section, I rephrased it as: "In 2002, Michael Osterholm purchased 98 acres (0.40 km²) of land near Dorchester, Iowa. Osterholm, an epidemiologist, was told..." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optionally, you could wikilink acres.
Done. DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Although authors and illustrators of picture books often work separately," - I didn't see explicit support for this in the source cited.
Modified this one to quote McGehee from that source with attribution: According to McGehee, while "traditionally author and illustrator don't connect during the creation of a picture book," the two collaborated... DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

Seems a fair summary, from what I see in sources.

Writing and illustrations

Seems fine.

Reception

thinking about NPOV, I had a look in NewsBank and while there are quite a few reviews/mentions in local US papers, none of them seem anything other than positive. I didn't spot any that seemed like real omissions from the set of reviews summarised here. (No action or reply needed on this.)
"received particular applause from critics" - while I wouldn't have commented on "was applauded by critics", "received ... applause" seems a bit too literal. But if it's not uncommon in American English than it's fine to keep the current wording.
Yeah, I can see how that sounds weird. Reworded to "Reviewers also wrote positively about McGehee's scratchboard illustrations." DanCherek (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/References

Spot checks on Kilen (2017), Giorgio (2017), and Auerbach (2017) - no issues identified except anything noted above.

Infobox and lead

Quite a short lead, but I don't think there are any glaring omissions. I guess that the New York Public Library and Riverby Awards may not be big enough deals to be mentioned.
Added the Riverby Award to the lead, just for a little more comprehensiveness. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could perhaps be reworked to make it clearer that both the real and fictional creeks were restored and saw wildlife flourish.
Modified the lead a bit to try to accommodate this, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. Feel free to challenge any of my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I am working on these now... DanCherek (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My power is out due to Hurricane Ian, so will resume after it’s restored later today... DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright BennyOnTheLoose, sorry for the delay and thanks again for the review. I've made changes to the article in response to your helpful suggestions above. DanCherek (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DanCherek. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.